Brown, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1763 (27 November 2024)

Brown, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1763 (27 November 2024)

The recorder was entitled to admit the hearsay and bad character evidence under the statutory gateways, with sufficient safeguards for fairness. The evidence was not so unconvincing as to require stopping the case. The jury was properly directed, and no prejudice arose from the applicant's absence or the abandonment...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 1763
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Applicant: Peter Brown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Bad Character Evidence, Sexual Offences, Admissibility of Evidence, Jury Discharge, Trial in Absence of Defendant, Extension of Time for Appeal
Criminal Law Hearsay Evidence Bad Character Evidence Sexual Offences Admissibility of Evidence Jury Discharge Trial in Absence of Defendant Extension of Time for Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Peter Brown

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the recorder erred in admitting hearsay evidence of deceased witnesses under section 116 Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the recorder erred in admitting bad character evidence under section 101(1)(d) Criminal Justice Act 2003
  3. 3 Whether the recorder should have found no case to answer or stopped the trial under section 125 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Ratio Decidendi

The recorder was entitled to admit the hearsay and bad character evidence under the statutory gateways, with sufficient safeguards for fairness. The evidence was not so unconvincing as to require stopping the case. The jury was properly directed, and no prejudice arose from the applicant's absence or the abandonment of certain counts. The proposed grounds of appeal were unarguable and did not justify an extension of time or leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused
  • Leave to appeal against conviction refused